Journal of Sociolinguistics

Publisher: Wiley

Journal description

In four issues of 160 pages each per year the Journal of Sociolinguistics is an international forum

for multidisciplinary research on language and society. The journal promotes sociolinguistics as

a thoroughly linguistic and thoroughly social-scientific endeavour. We encourage submissions

which forge innovative links theoretically or empirically between social systems and linguistic

practices. The journal is concerned with language in all its dimensions macro and micro as

formal features or abstract discourses as situated talk or written text. Data in published articles

represent a wide range of languages regions and situations - from Alune to Xhosa from

Cameroun to Canada from bulletin boards to dating ads. The journal publishes occasional

thematic issues on new topics of wide relevance to sociolinguistics such as 'Styling the Other'

(1999 edited by Ben Rampton) and 'Non-standard orthographgy and non-standard speech' (2000

edited by Alexandra Jaffe). We publish and encourage articles that build or critique

sociolinguistic theory and the application of recent social theory to language data and issues. The

journal's Dialogue section carries opinion pieces and exchanges between scholars on topical

issues including in 2000 Jan Blommaert Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Robert Phillipson on

sociolinguistics and linguistic human rights.

Journal of An Introduction to SociolinguisticLanguage is arbitrary vocal symbol that has

meaning. The word "language" has two meanings: language as a general concept, and "a

language" (a specific linguistic system, e.g. "French"). language is essentially a set of items, such
as entities of sounds, words, grammatical structures, and so on. It is these items, their status, and

their arrangements that language theorist such as Chomsky concerns themselves with. On the

other hand . Languages other than English often have two separate words for these distinct

concepts. French for example uses the word langage for language as a concept and langue as the

specific instance of language.

Society is any groups of people who are drown together for a certain purpose or purposes.
A language is what the members of particular society speak. Speech in almost any society can
take many very different forms, and just what forms should be chosen to discuss when it is
described the language of a society may prove to be a contentious matter.
When two or more people communicate with each other in speech, we can call the system
of communication that they employ the code. In most cases that code will be something we may
also want to call a language. We should also note that two speakers who are bilingual, that is,
who have access to two codes, and who for one reason or another shift back and forth between
the two language as they converse by code-switching are actually using a third code, one which
draws on those two languages. The system (or the grammar to use a well noun technical term) is
something that each speaker know, but two very important is use for linguist are just what that
knowledge is knowledge of and how it may best be characterized.
Relationship between language and social
There are several possible relationships between language and society. One is that social
structure may influence or determine linguistic structure and/or behavior. Certain evidence may
be adduced to support this view: age-grading phenomena whereby young children speak
differently from old children and, in turn, children speak differently from mature adults: studio
which show that the varieties of language that speakers use reflect such matter as their regional,
social, or ethnic origin and possibly even their gender: and other studies which show that
particular of speaking, choice of words and even rules for conversing are in fact highly
determined by certain socio requirements.
Second possible relationship is directly opposed to the first: linguistic structure and/or
behavior may either influence or determine social structure. This is the view that is behind the
Whorfian hypothesis, the claims on Bernstein, and many of those who argue that languages
rather than speakers of these languages can be sexist.
A third possible relationship is that the influence is bi-directional: language and society
may influence each other. One variant of this approach is that this influence is dialectical in
nature, a Marxist view argue that speech behavior and social behavior are in a state of constant
interaction and that material living conditions are an important factor in the relationship.
A fourth possibility is to assume that there is no relationship between language structure
and social structure and that each is independent of the other. There might be so much
relationship; present attempts to characterize it are essentially premature, given what we know
about both language and society. Chomsky prefers to develop an asocial linguistics as a
preliminary to any other kind of linguistic such as an asocial approach being, in his view
logically prior.
Sociolinguistics and the Sociology of Language
There is a distinction between Sociolinguistics and Sociology of Language.
Sociolinguistics is concerns with investigating the relationship between language and society
with the goal being a better understanding of the structure of language and of how languages
function in communication; the equivalent goal in the sociology of language is trying to discover
how social structure can be better understood through the study of language.
Methodological concerns
The approach to sociolinguistics is that it should encamp everything from considering
‘who speaks (or write), what language (or what language variety) to whom and when and to what
end’ that is the social distribution of linguistics items, to considering how a particular linguistics
variable might relate to the formulation of speck grammatical rule in a particular language or
dialect, and even to the process through which language change.
Language and communities
Languages, Dialects, and Varieties
It is defined that a variety of language as ‘a set of linguistics items with similar
distribution’ a definition that all of the following are varieties: Canadian English, London
English, and so on. Hudson and Ferguson define variety in terms of a specific set of linguistic
items’ or human speech patterns’ (presumably, sounds, words, grammatical features, etc. which
we can associate with some external factor (presumably, a geographical area or a social group).
 Language and dialect are ambiguous terms. Terms are used quite freely in speech; a
dialect is almost certainly no more than a local non-prestigious (therefore powerless) variety of a
real language. One term should be used rather than the other in certain conditions. Language can
be used to refer either to a single linguistic norm or to a group related norms, and dialect to refer
to one of the norm. Dialect used both for local varieties of English. A dialect is often thought of
as standing outside the language. A dialect is a language that is excluded from society. It is often
equivalent to nonstandard of even sustain when such terms are applied to language.
There are seven criteria that are useful in discussing different kind of languages. They are
standardization, vitality, historicity, autonomy, reduction, mixture, and de facto norms.
Standardization refers to the process by which a language has been codified in some way. The
process involves the development such things as grammars, spelling books, and dictionaries, and
possibly a literature.
Vitality refers to the existence of a living community of speakers. This criterion can be
used to distinguish languages that are alive from those that are dead.
Historicity refers to the fact that a particular group of people finds a sense of identify
through using a particular language: it belongs to them. Social, political, religious, or ethnic ties
may also be important for the group, but the bond is provided by a common language may to be
the strongest tie of all.
Autonomy is an interesting concept because it is really one of feeling. A language must
be felt by its speakers to be different from other language. It is very subjective criterion.
Reduction refers to the fact that a particular variety may be regarded as a sub-variety
rather that as an independent entity. Sometimes it is in the kinds of opportunities afforded to
users of the variety. There may be a reduction of resources that is the variety may lack a writing
system.
Mixture refers to feelings speakers have about the purity of the variety they speak. It
partly explains why speakers of pidgins and creoles have difficulty in classifying what they
speak as full languages: these varieties are, in certain respects, quite obviously mixed, and the
people who speak them often feel that the varieties are neither one thing nor another, but rather
are debased, deficient, degenerate, or marginal varieties of some other standard language.
De facto norms refers to the feeling that many speakers have that there are both good
speakers and poor speakers and that the good speakers represent the norms of proper usage.
 A dialect is a subordinate variety of language. If a language is spoken by view people, or
so uniformly, that it has only one variety. It is attempted to say that language and dialect become
synonymous in such a case.
Regional Dialects
Regional dialects are such distinctive varieties. The term dialect is sometimes used only if
there is a strong tradition in writing in the local variety. The dialect-patois distinction seems to
make more sense in some situation. In medieval France, a number of languages flourished and
several were associated with strong literary tradition. Patois is usually used to describe only rural
forms of speech; we may talk about an urban dialect, but to talk about an urban patois seems
strange. Patois also seems to refer only to the speech of the lower strata in society; again it talks
about a middle-class dialect but not, apparently about middle-class patois. A dialect usually has a
wider geographical distribution than a patois.
Such situation is often referred to as a dialect continuum. There is a continuum of dialects
sequentially arranged over space: A, B, C, D, and so on. Over large distances the dialects at each
and of the continuum may well be mutually unintelligible, and also some of the intermediate
dialects may be unintelligible with one or both ends, or even with certain other intermediate
ones.
Dialect geography is the term used to describe attempts made to map the distributions of
various linguistic features so as the show their geographical provenance. Sometimes maps are
drown to show actual boundaries around such features, boundaries are called isoglosses, so as a
to distinguish an area in which a certain feature is found from areas in which it is absent. When
several isoglosses coincide, the result is sometimes called a dialect boundary. Speakers on one
side of the boundary speak one dialect and the speakers on other side speak a different dialect.
The term dialect is used to reference to regional variation, should not to confused with the
term accent, often with clear regional and social associations: there are accents associated with
North America, Singapore, India, Liverpool, Boston and so on. Many people who live in such
places show a remarkable uniformity to one another in their grammar and vocabulary because
they speak Standard English and the differences are merely those of accents.
Social Dialects
Whereas regional dialects are geographically based, social dialects originate among
social groups and related to a variety of factors, the principles ones apparently being social class,
religion, and ethnicity. For example, in a city like Baghdad, the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim
inhabitants speak different varieties of Arabic.
Studies in social dialectology, the term used to refer to this branch of linguistic study,
confront many difficult issues, particularly when investigators venture into cities. Cities are
much more difficult to characterize linguistically than rural hamlets; variation in language and
patterns of change are much more obvious in cities, e.g., in family structures, employment, and
opportunities for social advancement or decline.
Styles, Registers, and Beliefs
Study of dialect is further complicated by the fact that speakers can adopt different styles
of speaking. We can speak very formally or very informally, our choice being governed by
circumstances. Ceremonial occasions almost invariably require very formal speech, public
lecture somewhat less formal, casual conversation quite informal, and conversation between
intimates on matters of little importance may be extremely informal and casual.
Register is another complicating factor in any study of language varieties. Registers are
set of language items associated with discrete occupational or social group. Surgeons, airline
pilots, bank managers, sales clerks, jazz fans, and pimps employ different registers.
Many people hold strong beliefs on various issues having to do with language and are
quite willing to offer their judgment on issues. They believe such things as certain language lack
grammar, that we can speak English without an accent, that France is more logical that English,
that parents teach their children to speak, that primitive language exist, that English is
degenerating and language standards are slipping, that pronunciation should be based on
spelling, and so on. Language beliefs are well entrenched as are language attitudes and language
behavior.
Pidgin and Creoles
A simplified language derived from two or more languages is called a pidgin. It is a
contact language developed and used by people who do not share a common language in a given
geographical area. It is used in a limited way and the structure is very simplistic. Since they serve
a single simplistic purpose, they usually die out. However, if the pidgin is used long enough, it
begins to evolve into a more rich language with a more complex structure and richer vocabulary.
Once the pidgin has evolved and has acquired native speakers ( the children learn the pidgin as
their first language), it is then called a Creole. An example of this is the Creole above from
Papua New Guinea, Tok Pisin, which has become a National language.
In the nineteenth century, when slaves from Africa were brought over to North America
to work on the plantations, they were separated from the people of their community and mixed
with people of various other communities, therefore they were unable to communicate with each
other. The strategy behind this was so they couldn't come up with a plot to escape back to their
land. Therefore, in order to finally communicate with their peers on the plantations, and with
their bosses, they needed to form a language in which they could communicate. Pidgins also
arose because of colonization. Prominent languages such as French, Spanish, Portuguese,
English, and Dutch were the languages of the coloni zers. They traveled, and set up ports in
coastal towns where shipping and trading routes were accessible.
There is always a dominant language which contributes most of the vocabulary of the
pidgin; this is called the superstrate language. The other minority languages that contribute to the
pidgin are called the substrate languages.
In the United States, there is a very well known Creole, Louisiana Creole, which is
derived from French and African Languages. You most likely have heard of "Cajun" which is a
developed dialect of this Creole.
Lingua Franca
A lingua franca is a language which is used habitually by people whose mother tongues
are different in order to facilitate communication between them. A variety of other terms can be
found which describe much the same phenomenon. They are a trade language, a contact
language, an international language, an auxiliary language, and mixed language.
Codes
Code is a set of symbols for representing something. The term code is somewhat
colloquial. It is possible to refer to a language or a variety of language as a code. Dialects,
language, style, standard language, pidgin and Creole are terms that are inclined to arouse
emotions. The neutral term code can be used to refer to any kind of system that two or more
people employ communication. The factors govern the choice of particular code on a particular
occasion.
When we open our mouth, we must choose a particular language, dialect, style, register,
or variety that is, a particular code. Many of issues that there will also arise with those codes
which can be called sub-varieties of a single language e.g., dialects, styles, and registers. In
particular, we will examine the so-called diglossic situation in which clear functional differences
between the codes govern the choice. Diglossia is relatively stable language situation in which,
in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional
standards).
There are two kinds of code-switching: situational and metaphorical. Situational code-
switching occurs when the language used change according to the situations in which another in
a different one. No topic change in involve. When a change of topic requires a change in the
language used we have metaphorical code-switching.
This kind of code-switching differs from glossia. In glossic communities the situation
also controls the choice of variety but the choice is much more rigidly defined by the particular
activity that is involved and by the relationship between the participants. Diglossia reinforces
differences, whereas code-switching tends to reduce them. In diglossia too people are quite
aware that they have switched from H to L or L to H. code-switching, on the other hand, is often
quite sub-conscious: people may not be aware that they have switched or be able to report,
following a conversation, which code they used a particular topic.
Speech community
Speech community is any human aggregate characterized by regular and frequent
interaction by means of a shared body of verbal signs and set off from similar aggregates by
significant differences in language usage. A more restrictive concept, assuming a shared set of
grammatical rules; emphasizes linguistic contrast w/outsiders. Gumperz also argues for regular
relationships between language use and social structure. The speech varieties employed within a
speech community form a system because they are related to a shared set of social norms but
may overlap language boundaries. A speech community is made up of individuals who regard
themselves as speaking the same language; it need have no other defining attributes.
Change
Traditional view of language changes, the changes that can be demonstrated to have
structural consequences. Over a period of time a distinction between two sounds may be lost in a
language, as occurred historically in most varieties of English in the vowels of meet and meat or
horse and hoarse. Phonemic coalescence is situations in which a contrast existed at one time but
later was lost, and instances of phonemic split, situation in which there was no contrast at one
time but the contrast developed.
Internal histories of language show the structure changes that have occurred over periods
of time through use of this principle of contrast versus lack of contrast. External in nature is
change brought about through borrowing from other dialects or languages that are often quite
clearly distinguishable, for a while at least, from change that come about internally.

The Whorfian Hypothesis

Since language and culture are debatable in the way one influence another, consequently
linguistic scientists stood for investigating a different argument about this. Some believed that
the structure of language determines the way the speakers think, act or behave in daily living,
while some refused that argument. They figured out that culture definitely influence the language
varieties. And the rest of them prefer to point out that language and culture stand independently
without any relationship each other. These hypothesis concerning those two terms (language and
culture) broaden its study till today.
Benjamin Lee Whorf, the student of Edward Sapir, found out the objective that is
famously known as "The Whorfian Hypothesis". He mentioned that ideas are not independently
formulated but the background of grammatical system generally modifies it. That is why
different people view the world differently as they differentiate language structurally.
Whorf found his hypothesis through his two experiences, either as a fire prevention
engineer for The Hartford Fire Insurance Company or Linguistic work on American Indian
Language where he was a student of Sapir. He observed the specific vocabularies used by fire
workers that were understandable among them. It is the same as the chemicals or physicians who
easily talk about medical matters while we do not. It means the linguistic behaviors even purely
behaviors itself are much determined by the linguistic formulas in which the situation is spoken.
Whorf's experience as the linguistic observer led him to the investigation through the structure of
Hopi language of New Mexico which is in contrast with European language; such as English,
German, French, etc. in European language, the time order is presented in different structure
while Hopi provided a process orientation toward the world. These distinctions formally
influence the speakers in the way they form their world-view.
 Kinship System
The study about kinship seem interesting since it is complicatedly various. Almost every
language differ in renaming and redefining the label of family members, for instance; The
Njamal (a tribe of Australian Aborigines) calls his or her father's brother's daughter as 'Turda'
whereas 'cousin' in English. They used the word 'maraga' to mention any daughters who are
younger than.
Again, the world of language develops dynamically, the result is the kinship system also may
more vary and vary depends on an appropriate situation that occur.
Taxonomies
Since people differ in the way they occupy themselves, as the result, there will be a great
number of different classification and categorization of any aspects of the world. Scientists take a
place on their appropriate scientific matter, while librarians and story-teller, for example, do too.
They unconsciously manipulate language into various forms depend on its own place.
Then, linguists offer the discipline called 'Folk Taxonomies' which refers to the way of
classifying a certain part of reality in order to make some easiness in the world of
communication.
Folk Taxonomies may also means specifying such word choices in such matters. Frake
(1961) once held a studies concerning this term on The Subanun of Mindanano in The Southern
Philippines. They used particular term to describe disease. The study about Folk Taxonomies
effectively helps us to investigate how people organize the world around them.
Color Terminology
Language and culture exploration, then, come to the study of color terminology. This is
basically simple; however, it is able to colorize the area of language varieties, because a
particular language has a particular word to express color. Each language generally has the basic
color terms, for instance English has only a single word to mention basic color; blue, yellow, red,
and so on. However, the need of people to express more than only basic color, consequently led
them to create a certain word such as 'the light blue, pale yellow, grayish brown, etc.
Prototype Theory
This theory refers to the way people codify such things and situation around them. People
prefer to classify a particular thing arbitrarily. For example; apple, orange are included to kind of
fruit while tomato is not.
Hudson (1980) pointed out that Prototype Theory is an easy way for people to express language
verbally from such things and situation that are occurred. This theory is not only helps us to form
an ideas but also to draw social competence in the use of language.
Taboo and Euphemism
Taboo stands for a certain expression which is considerably avoided because, usually,
norm wants it to be avoided for some particular reasons. Society defines taboo particularly as
kind of behaviors that are harmful to its members. Taboo has wide areas, such as sex, death,
excretion, bodily function, religious matter, etc. Language taboo in particular community may be
not meant so in another community. That is why people should be careful in giving judgment on
certain language varieties. It means a language used by particular society may be not the superior
one among others. In other hand, Euphemistic expression, people are allowed to express certain
tabooed, of course, in particular ways. However, taboo and euphemism arbitrarily based on a
society’s agreement. All those things refer to language varieties.
Ethnographies
Ethnography is a scientific research strategy often used in the field of social sciences,
particularly in anthropology and in some branches of sociology, and also known as part of
historical science that studies people, ethnic groups and other ethnic formations, their ethno
genesis, composition, resettlement, social welfare characteristics, as well as their material and
spiritual culture. It is often employed for gathering empirical data on human societies and
cultures. Data collection is often done through participant observation, interviews,
questionnaires, etc. Ethnography aims to describe the nature of those who are studied (i.e. to
describe a people, an ethnos) through writing. In the biological sciences, this type of study might
be called a "field study" or a "case report," both of which are used as common synonyms for
"ethnography".
Solidarity and politeness
Solidarity and politeness mean adjusting words to fit occasion. There are some strategies
developed in order to save the hearers’ “face,” which refers to (1) the respect that an individual
has for him or herself and (2) the act of maintaining “self-esteem” in public or in private
situations. What to do with respect to solidarity and politeness is avoiding Face Threatening Acts
(FTA’s), acts that infringe on the hearers’ need to maintain his/her self esteem, and be respected.
There are four types of politeness strategies: Bald on Record, Negative Politeness, Positive
Politeness, and Off-Record-indirect strategy.

 Bald On-Record strategy (provides no effort to minimize threats to your teachers’

“face.”)
 Positive Politeness strategy (you recognize that your teacher has a desire to be respected,
and confirm that the relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity)
 Negative Politeness strategy (you recognize that your teacher wants to be respected
however, you also assume that you are in some way imposing on them)
 Off-Record indirect strategies (The main purpose is to take some of the pressure off of
you but you are trying not to directly impose by asking for a pen)

With respect to gender women typically use more polite speech than do men (honorific:
showing respect, and softening devices such as hedges and questions). They historically are
expected to “act like a lady” and “respect those around you.” Men, on the other hand, are
permitted, even encouraged, to talk rough, cultivate a deep “masculine” voice. However,
avoiding FTA is good for your social interaction with language.
Talk and Action
Speech Act
Utterances can make proposition. There are clausal type and complexity of utterance;
they are active-passive, statement-question-request-exclamatory, and various combinations of
these. Constative utterances are the utterances that are connected in some way with event or
happenings in a possible world which propositions can be said to be either true or false.
Speech act is an act that the speaker performs making an utterance. There are some acts
conditions in speech; (1) Locutionary act is the statement having grammatical structure and
linguistic meaning, (2) Illocutionary act is the speaker intension of the utterance, (3)
Perlocutionary act is the effects of the utterance on the hearer, (4) Felicity conditions are
necessary conditions to make successful of speech acts, (5) Prepositional contain is the utterance
produced if the composer commits himself to be a future act, (6) Preparatory condition is the
utterance produced if speaker believes that the listener will not perform the act without being
asked, (7) Sincerity condition is the utterance produced if the speaker wants the listener to do
what the speaker has been asked, and (8) Essential condition is the utterance produced if the
speaker show to listener that he really wants to persuade and does what he wants to listener.
Understanding and Intervening
Gender
Sex is to a very large extent biologically determined whereas gender is a social construct
involving the whole gamut of genetic, psychological, social and cultural differences between
male and female. Gender is not a pool of attributes possessed by a person, but something a
person does. It means to be a woman or to be a man changes from one generation to the next and
varies between different racialized, ethnic, and religious group, as well as for members of
different social classes.
There are differences between woman and man is hardly a matter of dispute. Females
have two X chromosomes whereas men have an X and a Y; this is a key genetic difference and
no geneticist regards that difference as unimportant. On average, females have more fat and less
muscle than males, are not as strong, and weigh less. They also mature rapidly and live longer.
The female voice usually has different characteristic from the male voice, and often female and
male exhibit different range of verbal skills.
Women conform more closely than men to sociolinguistic norms that are overtly
prescribed, but conform less than men when they are not to read than men are less conforming
than women with stable linguistic variables and more conforming when change is in progress
within a linguistic system.
Conclusion
Languages are just as complex as societies, and it is difficult to make generalization
about those. Language should be so complex is not surprisingly. Language and society are
related. Social and linguistic complexities are not unrelated. All cultures and all languages are
extremely complex. If both the structure and language of any group of people defy adequate
description, the relationships that certain exist between the two are not likely to be more
transparent even to well inform observers.
Complication is added by the fact that various kinds of complexity in language give a
considerable concern. It is the amount of variation that is apparent wherever we look. Language
varies show that people are aware of this fact, even though they may not be conscious of
precisely what they are doing and how they are reacting to the variant that others use. Variation
seems to be an inherent property of language. If it is, it creates a number of theoretical problems
of linguists.
Linguists working in the Chomskyan tradition have generally tried not to involve
themselves with variation, preferring to adopt a view of language which sees it is homogeneous
and describing a linguistic competence which they assume all speakers posses. However if an
important part of the linguistic competence of language users is their ability to handle variation
and the various uses of language in society, the competence that needs to be explained is one that
encompasses a much wider range of abilities. It is communicative competence, of which
linguistic competence is but a part. While sociolinguistics have talked at length, however about
communicative competence, attempt to specify just what is have not been very successful,
probably because it is so complex and all-encompassing. Furthermore, attempts to use the
concept to rely more on rhetoric than on substance.
If there is such a thing as communicative competence, and there must surely be in some
sense, a further problem arises in trying to explain how it develops in individuals. Just how does
an individual learn to use the variants of a linguistic variable, to code switch, to use sexist
language, and so on? Moreover , how does that the individual learn to use this in the same way
as certain other individual forces that bring out such learning, what intellectual abilities are
called for, and what survival value follows from the results? These are all very important
linguistic and social problem, answer to which will bring us important understanding about
human linguistic and social organization.
One of the facts that our various inquiries have certainly shown is that the data we can
use the explorations of the relationship between language and society seem boundless. Moreover,
there is no shortage of concepts and categories available to use to make sense of those data. We
have seen various attempts at such organization. We can begin with concepts like language and
dialect in an attempt to discover how useful these are. In just about every case, such an approach
has revealed shortcoming. While such concepts allow us to organize large amount of data, they
fail us too often to become the building blocks of a comprehensive theory. For example, we
cannot adequately define ether language or dialect, nor we can infallibly distinguish the one form
the other.
Quantification is a useful approach in showing what kinds of behavior you may expect to
find among group of people and trends in that behavior across various dimensions such as time,
space, gender, age and social class. But any resulting claims are claims about behavior we can
expect of groups, or of subgroups. In that respect they are statements about an idealized typical
member, whoever he or she might be. In actual fact, individuals are never typical, and certainly
their behavior is never ideal by almost any criterion. What is interesting is the particular fit
between individuals and such idealizations, and especially the fundamental sociological puzzle
of whether people model their behaviors in certain ideals they perceive to exist or whether any
ideals that people claim to exist are just idealizations arrived at through emphasizing similarities
we believe to exist in people`s behavior and down-playing differences. The approach through
quantification is therefore not without a whole array of problems, ranging from very simple
issues such as collecting data, to profound ones having to do with the nature of social reality.
An approach through language function may also be indicated by the fact that language is
used for so many purposes. As we have seen, there are many ways of trying to deal with
language function. We can try an ethnographic approach, we can analyze conversations, and we
can attempt to distinguish what people do with language as opposed to what they use language to
say, as in speech-acts approach, and so on. Much understanding of language use has been
achieved by investigations conducted with such aims. Above all, though, they show how subtle
and varied are the differences that exist, yet hoe easily and confidently speakers and listeners
handle these subtleties.
One thing that our examination of various issues has revealed though is how important
such concepts as “class, power, solidarity, politeness, and gender” are in trying to make sense of
the data we find. Unfortunately, we have no grand theory to unite these. Figueroa concludes her
study of sociolinguistics theory in general and specifically the ideas of Labov, Hymes, and
Gumperz by saying “there is no unified theory of sociolinguistics, or even for that matter, a
shared meta theory. There is a shared sociolinguistics subject matter -”utterance”- but this not
necessarily delimit sociolinguistics from other types of linguistics.”
Some sociolinguistics insists on a narrow view. We may agree with Chambers that:
We have come to understand how variable function in vernacular and standard dialects. It may
be possible now to go beyond that and ask why. Why do certain variables recur in dialects all
around the world? Why is it these particular variables, not others, that persist? Why are they
constrained in almost exactly the same way in different, widely separated communities? Why are
they embedded so similarly in the social strata?
However, his next sentence, “this vast, virtually unexplored area lies at the very root of our
discipline,” might give us pause. Are there no other roots? Is that sociolinguistics should be
about?
The study of language in society is best served by resisting premature urges to declare
that it must proceed along certain lines and may not proceed along others. Repeatedly, we have
seen that multi-functional nature of any issue we have looked at. Even when we took a uni-
dimensional approach, we did so knowing full well what we were doing and in the knowledge
that another or other approaches might cast a different light on the issue. Although people have
long been interested in the relationships between language and society, it is only fairly recently
that scientific approaches have been adopted. It seems wiser to encourage a variety of scientific
approach and the generalization of a range of theories that to put our entire trust and hope into a
single